“MEDIA MATTERS Watch” : Media Matters’ Falsehoods Exposed!

A September 22, 2006, post by Media Matters is a long and rambling attempt to besmirch Bill O’Reilly and his new book, Culture Warrior. Not surprisingly, the one who is ultimately debunked is Media Matters.

MMatters’ post contains a lengthy list of deception and misleading information. Here you go:

1.

What Media Matters doesn’t tell you is that the 1,000 stories on Rush Limbaugh were most likely about his June 2006 arrest for Viagra. These were hardly fawning reports on Limbaugh. In fact, rather than providing an example of "conservative misinformation," MMFA gives a terrific textbook example of liberal media bias. Meanwhile, it’s quite likely that the 300 citations of Al Franken were in reference to reviews and promotion for a movie about him called "God Spoke."

Here is another clear case of dishonesty and deception by Media Matters.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

2.

Less discerning viewers may fall for Media Matters’ canard, but smarter ones know better. Quite clearly, a newspaper’s editorial slant cannot simply be encapsulated by who it endorses for President.

Media Matters probably won’t want you to do this, but go take a peek at the Houston Chronicle’s opinion pages. Also check out the Denver Post and the Times-Picayune. A cursory look at all three papers will reveal that liberal voices permeate them all. O’Reilly’s assertions about these papers’ liberal tilts are well founded.

Here is a case where Media Matters tries to slip by a fact and hope that readers don’t follow up with their own research.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

3.

Here is another textbook case of a bait-and-switch deception by Media Matters. The truth is that Ms. Hornaday, movie reviewer for the Washington Post, DID criticize Mel Gibson for bad history, but it wasn’t in the article that Media Matters cited. Media Matters cites a December 2004 article by Hornaday, but Hornaday reviewed Gibson’s film in February 2004. Her review, entitled "Less Than Gospel Truth," begins as follows (emphasis added),

"The Passion of the Christ," a harrowing condensation of Jesus’s final 12 hours, engages in some troubling assumptions, for starters by treating the Bible’s four Gospels as literal eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s arrest, torture and crucifixion. It traffics in lurid, almost pornographic imagery of blood, brutality and mortified flesh, rivaling Martin Scorsese’s "Gangs of New York" in its ghastly, stylized violence. [Mel Gibson] has exhibited a startling lack of concern for historical context, both of the Passion’s ritualized reenactment and of its story itself, which over the past several centuries has been used repeatedly to foment violence against Jewish communities.

O’Reilly is 100% correct about Hornaday. In addition, compare Hornaday’s scathing review of Passion with that of Fahrenheit 9/11. The title of Hornaday’s review is, "Presidential Pursuits: ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′: Moore’s Bush Treatise Cooks," and in her very-positive review she writes, "In many ways this is Moore’s best film."

Again, Media Matters’ response to O’Reilly is flat-out deception.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

4.

We’ve touched on this before (see #2). Again, a paper’s editorial leanings cannot be encapsulated simply by who it endorses for President. Check out the Chicago Tribune’s opinion pages. Its liberal tilt is well documented. Chicago newspaper readers understand that the Tribune generally is a liberal voice, while its competitor, the Sun-Times, is generally conservative.

Here’s another case in which MMatters hopes you don’t do any homework.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

5.

First of all, none of the sources that MMatters provides say that Roger Baldwin "became dillusioned with communism." Again, it appears MMatters doesn’t want its readers doing any follow-up research, like we’re doing here.

Second, MMatters’ attempt to disconnect the ACLU with communists would be laughable if it weren’t so dishonest. The ACLU’s ties to communists are very well documented. For example, check out the book ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten. ("[Roger] Baldwin held Communist/Socialist sympathies to the end of his life." p. 17) See also this and this.

MMatters’ attack on O’Reilly in this instance is simply baseless.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

6.

Here is a case of flat-out factual errors by Media Matters. MMatters falsely claims, "[S]ince [ACLU executive director Anthony] Romero took over as executive director in 2001, several ACLU members have appeared on The O’Reilly Factor." It then cites September 4 and September 5, 2001, appearances by ACLU attorneys. In fact, Romero did not officially take the helm of the ACLU until after those dates (source). MMatters is simply wrong on its facts. The result is that in over the last five years, by MMatters’ count, a whopping total of two ACLU attorneys have appeared across Bill. In addition, neither of them appear at the top of the ACLU’s "Staff & Leaders" page on its national home web site.

"Several ACLU members have appeared on The O’Reilly Factor"? Sorry, guys. Not even close.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

7.

Visitors to this site should already be aware that Media Matters Watch has already fully discredited and debunked MMatters’ May 2006 study. Click this to get the details on MMatters’ dishonesty —–> "Dishonesty Exposed in Media Matters’ Bogus ‘O’Reilly Factor’ Study"

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

8.

Here’s how Media Matters reasons this one:

Washington Post: Lobbyist Jack Abramoff "made substantial campaign contributions" to both Democrats and Republicans.

O’Reilly: Jack Abramoff "funneled money to Democrats as well as Republicans."

Media Matters: "Democrats received money from Abramoff’s clients and associates but not from Abramoff directly."

Parsing, anyone? Of course. Here is another case where Media Matters’ attempt to besmirch O’Reilly simply wades into silliness. File under, "Big Whoop."

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

9.

The truth is that Al Franken did deliberately and falsely smear O’Reilly. The "false attack" here is not from Bill O’Reilly. It’s unequivocally from Al Franken.

The actual deed to O’Reilly’s boyhood home has the words "Levittown, New York" right on it. In addition, a Levittown expert on Franken’s own radio show flat-out debunked Al by concluding that O’Reilly was indeed from Levittown! See this must-see link. Any fair-minded person will conclude that O’Reilly has an honest beef with Franken on this. Franken could have easily corrected his misinformation for the paperback edition of Lies, but he didn’t. That’s simply ugly dishonesty from Al Franken, but it should come as no surprise.

And that’s it for now! Bye!